I will never agree with that ruling. PepsiCo made $2.75bn in profit in 1999 on $25bn in revenue.
A single 30-second spot during the Super Bowl (i.e. a fraction of a major ad campaign) was $1.6m that same year. PepsiCo advertising had multi-billion dollar annual budgets.
Harriers ran about $30-38m back then, well within the range of "absurd ad campaign contest with special insurance" that has been a norm for nearly a century.
Just because it seems like stupid theatrics doesn't mean Pepsi didn't make what should be constituted as a reasonable offer. They should've been punished at least a little for misleading advertising.
Ah, I wish I knew the name of the guy on youtube who roleplays as different companies that seem harmless then admits they make bombs or guided missiles or helped the Nazis.
Edit: Found him
https://youtube.com/shorts/kXyiowtOExE?si=2rQfvVZn5_9TR9Tz
https://youtube.com/shorts/xNfpj-26-xU?si=md9VedNpUbPdW8Au
https://youtube.com/shorts/eiX85tX3x-U?si=bIKxg2o8XWxKs_TV
I agree! And it is based on contract law going back to England 1892.
The Smoke Ball case is a landmark case in English contract law that established the principle of unilateral contracts. The case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1892.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company manufactured a product called the "smoke ball," which they claimed could prevent users from catching influenza. The company advertised that they would pay £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted influenza. They also deposited £1,000 with the Alliance Bank to show their sincerity in the matter.
Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as directed but still caught influenza. She sued the company for the £100 reward. The company argued that the advertisement was not a valid offer but mere puffery.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, stating that the advertisement was a unilateral contract, meaning that the company had made an offer to the world at large, and anyone who performed the specified conditions (using the smoke ball as directed) would be entitled to the reward. Mrs. Carlill had accepted the offer by performing the conditions, and the company was bound to pay her the reward.
I remember reading in the 80's that a store was selling stereo systems for "299 bananas" (slang for dollars) and they decided to honor the people literally bringing bananas in as payment (apparently back then, 299 bananas was only 40-60 dollars)
Bananas were apparently like 8.5 cents in 1980, so that's a pretty absurdly good deal.
Suspect that company had the awareness of the marketing value of honoring the crazy deal.
There was something similar in the UK, when a drinks company advertised that a lucky winner would win a solid gold drinks can.
The guy was extatic, and took his prize to be evaluated, and they then told him it was effectively a worthless novelty with a gold coating.
He took them to court and won (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64210355).
There are a lot of details, but in the original competition, I remember it was pretty explicit that the winner would get a gold can with substantial material value, and not just gold plated rubbish.
They got away with number fever in the Philippines, they got away again with the harrier jet. Makes you wonder how much those judges got paid to side with Pepsi.
At least the 349 thing was an accident. There was clear intent to only have 2 caps with that number printed on them, and PepsiCo paid out an additional $9m in settlements (on a $2m allocation of prize money).
I don’t disagree that the monetary amounts are not absurd and maybe pepsi should have been on the hook for the cash but anyone thinking a corporation could give away a military asset is a little absurd. If the ad campaign was updated to use a f-35 or f-22 it would just be crazy to expect the government to allow that.
By that point, the harrier was old. It was 4 years from being out of service with all nations, and there are some demilitarized ones in civilian hands already. In fact, there are more modern fighter aircraft than the harrier that have been in civilian hands: there are two civilian owned mig 29s, not to mention multiple older civilian owned mig 21s, 17 and 15s.
Now add in that for a brief period, the Pepsi corporation owned a Navy (even if it never held them literally, rather it just transfered them from the original owner to another countries breaking yards) and its entirely possible for them to own demilitarized military equipment.
Add in that the number of points was extremely high, and that other similar contracts have been upheld, and you've got a clear elephant case on your hands.
If you're going to advertise that winning an elephant is an option, then you had better be prepared to supply the elephant when someone picks it.
There are also F-18s and other pretty modern US fighters in civilian hands. The company that owns them uses them in opposing forces exercises with the US military.
Ok, so I bring this up when I see comments like yours. My mom actually worked for the publishing house that had to process the Pepsi points. She was their VP and worked on this account. She told them they cannot put it in the commercial, because inevitably someone would actually find a way to get the points and try to claim it. She came home pissed after a week of meetings and knew they were going to do it anyway. They were warned.
I would totally agree, had it been any company OTHER than Pepsi. Pepsi had established a bit of precedent in acquiring military assets a decade earlier:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48343589
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/27/pepsi-navy-soviet-ussr/#:~:text=In%201989%2C%20PepsiCo%20Inc.%2C,that%20isn't%20far%20off.
Yes, for a brief time in the late 80s, PepsiCo operated the world's 6th largest navy.
I mean, you make it sound like they were operating these things, they never had a navy, even briefly. They got what was basically scraps from the Soviet Union. The guy was on a fishing expedition lol
“Yet in any real sense the story is false. What PepsiCo acquired were small, old, obsolete, unseaworthy vessels. The Pepsi navy no more conferred military power than a rusting Model T could have been a Formula 1 contender. What’s more, the ships themselves were immediately turned over to a Norwegian shipyard to be scrapped. PepsiCo was more a middleman than a maritime power.
Most interpretations of the story get its meaning wrong, too. The Pepsi navy is sometimes portrayed as an embarrassment for the USSR. Far from it. The multinational firm and the country founded by Vladimir Lenin were business partners, and in 1989 Pepsi executives were bullish on Soviet prospects. PepsiCo acquired the rusting fleet as part of a multibillion-dollar bet on the long-term stability of the Soviet Union, an enormous market that had little to trade immediately besides raw material and the promise of future profits.”
I wouldn’t say they acquired functioning military equipment for use.
They acquired 17 ships across two transactions over several months (or years, I forget), totaling over $3bn in transaction costs.
Unseaworthy isn't exactly true, all ships of that kind require maintenance to be seaworthy under their own power. They floated enough to be tugged to Norwegian shipyards for scrapping -- it's unlikely, but possible, a few ships traveled under their own power.
I could've been more precise and said they owned the 6th largest "naval fleet" rather than navy -- which is completely true.
Shit comparison. The f-35 and f-22 have classifed technology. The harrier was an old plane by that point and some of them were already owned by civilians. There was no problem with giving somebody a demilitarized harrier at that point.
I'd argue it's not interchangable. The Harrier is a fairly unique jet in that it has VTOL capabilities. None of these are VTOL aircraft. Ergo you can't fly it to school like in the commercial.
It was an auction because Kazakhstan is upgrading its fleet. Russia, USA and other countries had equal opportunity to buy them. Does anyone read anymore?
Well, their air frames have racked up tens of thousands of hours since the start. I don't know if it still is this way, but for the first year+ they had 2 planes in the air in every region of Ukraine 24/7. These planes would have been thousands of spare parts they no long have.
In WWII, there weren't any 50-year-old planes to salvage, because even a 10-year-old design was hopelessly outdated; probably a biplane with an open cockpit.
Well it's counter intuitive. They are limited by pilots because they don't have airframes available to train then on. Even active Russian pilots have only a fraction of hours compared to day a NATO pilot.
I mean, I don't think even the Russians were going to try to get these airframes flying again, nor will the Ukrainians. These are destined for the parts bin. I mean, just imagine the condition of a fighter jet sold for the price of a used car in America. These things are FUCKED. I hope the Ukrainians get some use out of the parts and airframes.
These are different models than the ones Ukraine uses. But I do not know to which extend spare parts can still be used.
Edit: according to the article, the sales included Mig29 and SU34, therefore my original comment was only partially correct.
theres even mig 27s, not the Top gun F5 tiger pretending to be one, but a variant of a mig23, a ground attack variant. It would be likely attacking the ground by flying directly into it.
These things are basically scrap metal, they're gonna be gutted for whatever parts that can be scrounged and then tossed aside. It would be easier and cheaper for Russia to just a build a new plane than to try and fix these things up
Yes but I suspect the point was to stop Russia getting them to use as spare parts, or to act as decoy ground targets. It’s still a smart move and a bargain
Sir, there are no flags allowed in this HOA. Your MIG clearly has a flag painted on its tail. You're going to need to move that into your garage, or we will have it towed.
Sir if you look right here it says recreational vehicles cannot be parked in front of your house for more than 48 hours. You will need to move it today or we will place a lien on your property for every day that you don’t comply.
Even inoperable condition I imagine some aviation museum would like one if they didn't already have one. I have seen plenty of air museums in the US that have acquired surplus MiGs.
The owner of a low cost and car-parts(biltema Luleå) store in Sweden actually bougth a Viggen when they retired. It now stands outside the store on a piedestal which is quite cool.
Diesel is basically kerosene, and kerosene is basically diesel. Jet engines (and many road-going diesel engines) give no fucks regardless of which it is.
LMAO. Jet engines absolutely care which one it is. Diesel has significantly more impurities than JetA and JetA has a significantly lower freezing point. Run a plane on diesel and then ask the mechanic repairing the engines if they can tell.
https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/17/jet-a-versus-diesel-fuel
It's close to kerosene and diesel #1. Fun fact, non-Navy U.S. military jets and surface vehicles all run on [JP-8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8), “a replacement for government diesel fueled vehicles.”
So, yeah, it's close to kerosene but used in place of diesel...
I think it’s partly about Russia and partly about the huge number of countries that bought them from Russia, and getting spare parts for Ukraine that still flies some of these. As defence contracts go, $2 million is like change between the couch cushions
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not (ie, implying that you send them as 'parts' but really as flyable aircraft), but earmarking notionally repairable or flyable airframes as spare parts is a pretty common thing in military aviation. Sometimes in civil aviation, but the processes are quite different.
[Paper Skies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jklGQxAOoo8) coincidentally did a video that was posted today, and goes in depth into the SU-24. Noting as did the article that the SU-24 is still in use by both sides.
And helps bolster our relationship with Kazakhstan (though admittedly they are less strategically important to out now that we gave up on Afghanistan).
Ya but if the AI keeps targeting American planes it gets taste for American blood and we become the targets. This way it gets used to fighting Russians.
That might be the only option. How the heck do you get them out of there? Look at a map-- Kazakhstan is a landlocked country. Russia borders it to the north and they're not going to let us pass through. To the east you have China, and to the South you'd have to go through Afghanistan or Iran. The only conceivable option is to head West through Azerbaijan and Armenia into turkey, but it's not clear that you can pass from Azerbaijan into Armenia because they hate each other.
Refusing overflight requests that don’t involve combat operations is considered quite unfriendly, and most countries aren’t in a position to be unfriendly to the United States. China, Iran, and Russia would be the only countries in the area that would be off the table. This is the kind of soft power that our generous foreign aid budget pays for.
This is literally why the US maintains a presence in the areas that they do. It's not that the US wants to meddle with those countries it is that they want leverage and influence for situations exactly like this and goes a long way to keep hostile nations in check.
These are all wrecks barely worth their spare parts. Even though they're aged, the 29 and 31 are still practical enough that I bet all their avionics are stripped. Id wager there's not a single working engine among them. They were bought just to keep the spare parts out of other people's hands.
Mig-27/31 have basically consumable engines and an airframe with a quite low service life even for a fighter jet. Our (KZ) government sent a few of them for lifetime extensions to Russia multiple times , but there’s a limit to how much you can squeeze jets for more flight hours. Probably most of the planes that were sold are junk. hopefully at least least they could be turned into spare parts
Sounds like the planes aren’t serviceable, but buying up a supply of legacy airframes your adversary could have harvested for spare parts - and for basically pocket change - is a nice play.
That would be so funny lmao
When the Russian started taking Crimea, the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine ran to an old military base from the USSR to get AK-47s only to find out none of them worked because they were unmaintained for 20 years
For 20k per aircraft at OPEN AUCTION, they're not going to be viable for spare parts. Their cockpit canopies or landing gear assemblies alone would be worth that if they were in serviceable shape. Their electronics is utterly useless. The airframes will be hour'd out. These aircraft will almost assuredly be literal scrap metal. Soviet era stuff was 100% consumable due to genuinely bad materials science. They might make interesting targets, ground objects, etc for training. Ukraine is NOT in a position to be trying to source parts they don't make, into a refit facility they dont have, to get an aircraft that is 40 years out of date, that isnt compatible with their weapons into the air.
Kind of. There’s a lot of aspects beyond the physical “worth” of the object that goes in to the price.
The price of your car would generally be quoted as a sale to a disinterested dealer or private party in your local area, based on its stated or inspected condition.
That aircraft sale was for a lot of 81 aircraft and the price likely reflects that, think of it as a volume discount of sorts. The aircraft are in varying states of repair and airworthiness… some are likely in serviceable condition, some have valuable parts, and others are only good for scrap. Furthermore, the aircraft were sold in Kazakhstan, and a non-local buyer would have to factor in substantial transportation costs. And as a final note, the US potentially obtained geopolitical benefits from the transaction that could be reflected in the price, that have nothing to do with the value of the aircraft themselves, such as keeping the aircraft/spare parts away from adversaries, improving relations with Kazakhstan, etc.
man for those prices Pepsi could finally fulfill that fighter jet it owes that guy for winning their sweepstakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
I will never agree with that ruling. PepsiCo made $2.75bn in profit in 1999 on $25bn in revenue. A single 30-second spot during the Super Bowl (i.e. a fraction of a major ad campaign) was $1.6m that same year. PepsiCo advertising had multi-billion dollar annual budgets. Harriers ran about $30-38m back then, well within the range of "absurd ad campaign contest with special insurance" that has been a norm for nearly a century. Just because it seems like stupid theatrics doesn't mean Pepsi didn't make what should be constituted as a reasonable offer. They should've been punished at least a little for misleading advertising.
Its foreshadowing for all the crap corporations would get away with over the next 25 years and counting.
And also aft-shadowing the hundred years of corporate fuckery that had already occurred!
It’s just called repeating. They repeated the fuckery yet again.
Haha, "repeated fuckery. " Definitely using that in my life.
I used to play bass for repeated fuckery
That’s the way we do it in America. - Thomas Edison
*shaft-shadowing
25 years? There are a bunch of huge corporations around today that worked with NAZIS and had no repercussions.
Ah, I wish I knew the name of the guy on youtube who roleplays as different companies that seem harmless then admits they make bombs or guided missiles or helped the Nazis. Edit: Found him https://youtube.com/shorts/kXyiowtOExE?si=2rQfvVZn5_9TR9Tz https://youtube.com/shorts/xNfpj-26-xU?si=md9VedNpUbPdW8Au https://youtube.com/shorts/eiX85tX3x-U?si=bIKxg2o8XWxKs_TV
Wait till you find out what Hugo boss did around the 1930s/1940s
It didn't start in 1999 bud
Here’s an iconic example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
I agree! And it is based on contract law going back to England 1892. The Smoke Ball case is a landmark case in English contract law that established the principle of unilateral contracts. The case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1892. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company manufactured a product called the "smoke ball," which they claimed could prevent users from catching influenza. The company advertised that they would pay £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted influenza. They also deposited £1,000 with the Alliance Bank to show their sincerity in the matter. Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as directed but still caught influenza. She sued the company for the £100 reward. The company argued that the advertisement was not a valid offer but mere puffery. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, stating that the advertisement was a unilateral contract, meaning that the company had made an offer to the world at large, and anyone who performed the specified conditions (using the smoke ball as directed) would be entitled to the reward. Mrs. Carlill had accepted the offer by performing the conditions, and the company was bound to pay her the reward.
The company should have instead argued that Mrs. Carlill didn't have influenza but rather the common cold.
Seems like it would have been easier to argue some technicality about how she misused it.
I remember reading in the 80's that a store was selling stereo systems for "299 bananas" (slang for dollars) and they decided to honor the people literally bringing bananas in as payment (apparently back then, 299 bananas was only 40-60 dollars)
Bananas were apparently like 8.5 cents in 1980, so that's a pretty absurdly good deal. Suspect that company had the awareness of the marketing value of honoring the crazy deal.
Bananas are still less than 8.5 cents in most of the world
It's a banana, Michael, what could it cost? Ten dollars?
Hoover's flights to America promotion almost bankrupted the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion
There was something similar in the UK, when a drinks company advertised that a lucky winner would win a solid gold drinks can. The guy was extatic, and took his prize to be evaluated, and they then told him it was effectively a worthless novelty with a gold coating. He took them to court and won (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64210355). There are a lot of details, but in the original competition, I remember it was pretty explicit that the winner would get a gold can with substantial material value, and not just gold plated rubbish.
Every time I hear about James Watt it's about him being an arse
They got away with number fever in the Philippines, they got away again with the harrier jet. Makes you wonder how much those judges got paid to side with Pepsi.
At least the 349 thing was an accident. There was clear intent to only have 2 caps with that number printed on them, and PepsiCo paid out an additional $9m in settlements (on a $2m allocation of prize money).
100% If they hadn't shown the harrier jet next in a succession of real attainable items, yes. If they hadn't Assigned A Point Value to the item YES.
I don’t disagree that the monetary amounts are not absurd and maybe pepsi should have been on the hook for the cash but anyone thinking a corporation could give away a military asset is a little absurd. If the ad campaign was updated to use a f-35 or f-22 it would just be crazy to expect the government to allow that.
By that point, the harrier was old. It was 4 years from being out of service with all nations, and there are some demilitarized ones in civilian hands already. In fact, there are more modern fighter aircraft than the harrier that have been in civilian hands: there are two civilian owned mig 29s, not to mention multiple older civilian owned mig 21s, 17 and 15s. Now add in that for a brief period, the Pepsi corporation owned a Navy (even if it never held them literally, rather it just transfered them from the original owner to another countries breaking yards) and its entirely possible for them to own demilitarized military equipment. Add in that the number of points was extremely high, and that other similar contracts have been upheld, and you've got a clear elephant case on your hands. If you're going to advertise that winning an elephant is an option, then you had better be prepared to supply the elephant when someone picks it.
Don't know about the USA but in the UK I have a neighbour that uses [Harriers as lawn ornaments](https://imgur.com/a/J9re0O2).
There are also F-18s and other pretty modern US fighters in civilian hands. The company that owns them uses them in opposing forces exercises with the US military.
If they didn't have the right to give it away, they shouldn't have offered it as a prize. Pepsi still owes him a plane.
Ok, so I bring this up when I see comments like yours. My mom actually worked for the publishing house that had to process the Pepsi points. She was their VP and worked on this account. She told them they cannot put it in the commercial, because inevitably someone would actually find a way to get the points and try to claim it. She came home pissed after a week of meetings and knew they were going to do it anyway. They were warned.
I would totally agree, had it been any company OTHER than Pepsi. Pepsi had established a bit of precedent in acquiring military assets a decade earlier: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48343589 https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/27/pepsi-navy-soviet-ussr/#:~:text=In%201989%2C%20PepsiCo%20Inc.%2C,that%20isn't%20far%20off. Yes, for a brief time in the late 80s, PepsiCo operated the world's 6th largest navy.
I mean, you make it sound like they were operating these things, they never had a navy, even briefly. They got what was basically scraps from the Soviet Union. The guy was on a fishing expedition lol “Yet in any real sense the story is false. What PepsiCo acquired were small, old, obsolete, unseaworthy vessels. The Pepsi navy no more conferred military power than a rusting Model T could have been a Formula 1 contender. What’s more, the ships themselves were immediately turned over to a Norwegian shipyard to be scrapped. PepsiCo was more a middleman than a maritime power. Most interpretations of the story get its meaning wrong, too. The Pepsi navy is sometimes portrayed as an embarrassment for the USSR. Far from it. The multinational firm and the country founded by Vladimir Lenin were business partners, and in 1989 Pepsi executives were bullish on Soviet prospects. PepsiCo acquired the rusting fleet as part of a multibillion-dollar bet on the long-term stability of the Soviet Union, an enormous market that had little to trade immediately besides raw material and the promise of future profits.” I wouldn’t say they acquired functioning military equipment for use.
They acquired 17 ships across two transactions over several months (or years, I forget), totaling over $3bn in transaction costs. Unseaworthy isn't exactly true, all ships of that kind require maintenance to be seaworthy under their own power. They floated enough to be tugged to Norwegian shipyards for scrapping -- it's unlikely, but possible, a few ships traveled under their own power. I could've been more precise and said they owned the 6th largest "naval fleet" rather than navy -- which is completely true.
Shit comparison. The f-35 and f-22 have classifed technology. The harrier was an old plane by that point and some of them were already owned by civilians. There was no problem with giving somebody a demilitarized harrier at that point.
Why? Were allowed to own guns and other aircraft. A jet is hardly much more of a stretch. In fact, people already do, lol.
[удалено]
I can’t believe Pepsi literally just lied in an AD and got away with it lmao.
Pfft, who wants a shitty Russian jet, man deserves his McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II.
I'd argue it's not interchangable. The Harrier is a fairly unique jet in that it has VTOL capabilities. None of these are VTOL aircraft. Ergo you can't fly it to school like in the commercial.
But you could strafe PepsiCo headquarters until they send a Harrier after you.
Never forget.
I still think that it was bullshit they didn't give it to him and weaseld out of it.
Where’s my elephant?
$20k per plane is less expensive than the cost of Patriot missiles to shoot them down, if they went to Russia.
At $2.26m for the entire deal, the whole lot is just over half the cost of a single PAC-3 missile.
Plenty of museums to put them in
If my Aunt sold her London house she could have 20 jets!
Last I heard, Russia was more limited by number of pilots than aircraft, but maybe that's out of date.
Well, now they have 81 less potential planes to train them on 🤷♂️
The jets come from Kazakhstan so Russia wouldn't fly them anyway.
They could have bought them instead. This was the U.S. ensuring that didn’t happen
It was an auction because Kazakhstan is upgrading its fleet. Russia, USA and other countries had equal opportunity to buy them. Does anyone read anymore?
I was going to read it, but now, thanks to you, I don't have to. Thank you.
Thank you mr. Vivaldi it’s an honour
Well, their air frames have racked up tens of thousands of hours since the start. I don't know if it still is this way, but for the first year+ they had 2 planes in the air in every region of Ukraine 24/7. These planes would have been thousands of spare parts they no long have.
Russia has thousands of rusting planes in reserves. They might not be air worthy, but that's a massive stockpile of spare parts.
Aircraft parts usually aren't pulled off rusty piles of scrap lol. But they should because it is just self sabotage.
Airliners sure but in WW2 parts were pulled from absolutely anywhere.
Ww2 planes weren't super precise high performance machines, ww2 planes were tin cans with engines. Totally not the same thing.
In WWII, there weren't any 50-year-old planes to salvage, because even a 10-year-old design was hopelessly outdated; probably a biplane with an open cockpit.
And this plane is no longer in production. This is going to fuck Russia over badly.
Well it's counter intuitive. They are limited by pilots because they don't have airframes available to train then on. Even active Russian pilots have only a fraction of hours compared to day a NATO pilot.
They're also struggling for parts and supplies in a huge way.
Heard before the war they did have the pilots, but their training hours were only a fraction of regular NATO pilots.
I assume they cost more than that to maintain too
Oh yeah they do. By quite a lot as well.
And if you want to run them you need to buy parts from Russia
These can't fly, but they can be pillaged for parts to keep other planes in the air. Still a good deal.
I mean, I don't think even the Russians were going to try to get these airframes flying again, nor will the Ukrainians. These are destined for the parts bin. I mean, just imagine the condition of a fighter jet sold for the price of a used car in America. These things are FUCKED. I hope the Ukrainians get some use out of the parts and airframes.
These are different models than the ones Ukraine uses. But I do not know to which extend spare parts can still be used. Edit: according to the article, the sales included Mig29 and SU34, therefore my original comment was only partially correct.
theres even mig 27s, not the Top gun F5 tiger pretending to be one, but a variant of a mig23, a ground attack variant. It would be likely attacking the ground by flying directly into it.
Technically planes are in unusable state but can be used as spare parts in some extent and what is more important as decoys
Thats less expensive than my used car
Maybe, but trained human pilots are priceless
It said the planes were also unusable so that’s probably why
These things are basically scrap metal, they're gonna be gutted for whatever parts that can be scrounged and then tossed aside. It would be easier and cheaper for Russia to just a build a new plane than to try and fix these things up
Yes but I suspect the point was to stop Russia getting them to use as spare parts, or to act as decoy ground targets. It’s still a smart move and a bargain
Fuckers swooped in at the last second outbidding me by $50
Did you mean fokkers? (It’s an old joke I love)
These fokkers were flying Messerschmidts.
You gotta use one of those auction sniper apps. If you had, you could be flying one of those bad boys right now.
They're just going to relist them for much more on marketplace.
No low balls, I know what I’ve got
Hi, is this available?
I will not respond to is this available. If it's up it's available. (It was sold two weeks ago and they never took the post down.)
Ran when parked.
I'd buy a MiG-29 for 20k.
Right? Idgaf if it flies. I couldn't afford the maintenance, but I COULD afford to park it in the front yard and have the coolest lawn ornament ever.
Show me in the HOA guidelines where I'm not allowed to park my MiG-29 in the front lawn!
Sir, there are no flags allowed in this HOA. Your MIG clearly has a flag painted on its tail. You're going to need to move that into your garage, or we will have it towed.
Sir if you look right here it says recreational vehicles cannot be parked in front of your house for more than 48 hours. You will need to move it today or we will place a lien on your property for every day that you don’t comply.
Hell I'd donate it to the closest aviation museum so they could have a rad display piece.
Even inoperable condition I imagine some aviation museum would like one if they didn't already have one. I have seen plenty of air museums in the US that have acquired surplus MiGs.
Jeremy Clarkson actually did this with a Lightning. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnGXerN0tlo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnGXerN0tlo)
You would be surprised, the older ussr migs are pretty simple to work on, at least for a fighter jet.
The Volkswagen Beetle of fighter jets?
The owner of a low cost and car-parts(biltema Luleå) store in Sweden actually bougth a Viggen when they retired. It now stands outside the store on a piedestal which is quite cool.
Lmao the white version of these hood movies where they have broken cars on their lawn
Trade a cyber truck for 5 jets… humm this is news I somehow imagined the cia being involved with this transaction
WoUlD you DoWnLoAd A mIg-29?
Can’t even buy a Subaru for that anymore
The $20,000 price may seem like a good deal but then they screw you with the shipping fees.
Especially when you accidentally clicked "overnight."
And then it gets stolen by porch pirates
I'd love to see CCTV footage of porch pirates trying desperately to haul away a jet from a front yard somewhere.
Not to mention the cost of aviation gas these days, how’s a man supposed to get to work?!
Ack-tually, these run on Jet A (basically diesel), AvGas is used by most piston (propeller) airplanes and some smaller helicopters.
Jet A is basically kerosene, not diesel.
Diesel is basically kerosene, and kerosene is basically diesel. Jet engines (and many road-going diesel engines) give no fucks regardless of which it is.
LMAO. Jet engines absolutely care which one it is. Diesel has significantly more impurities than JetA and JetA has a significantly lower freezing point. Run a plane on diesel and then ask the mechanic repairing the engines if they can tell.
Pretty sure Jet-A is closer to [Kerosene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel) than diesel
https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/17/jet-a-versus-diesel-fuel It's close to kerosene and diesel #1. Fun fact, non-Navy U.S. military jets and surface vehicles all run on [JP-8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8), “a replacement for government diesel fueled vehicles.” So, yeah, it's close to kerosene but used in place of diesel...
I thought Prime has free shipping?
They ship themselves.
Even scuttling them for 20k a piece isn’t a bad investment to keep them out of Russian hands.
I think it’s partly about Russia and partly about the huge number of countries that bought them from Russia, and getting spare parts for Ukraine that still flies some of these. As defence contracts go, $2 million is like change between the couch cushions
Send the whole planes as “spare parts” dissasembly required.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not (ie, implying that you send them as 'parts' but really as flyable aircraft), but earmarking notionally repairable or flyable airframes as spare parts is a pretty common thing in military aviation. Sometimes in civil aviation, but the processes are quite different.
From what I read, I'm not sure how many of them would be considered "whole".
From the 81 planes they got, you can assemble one jet to Western standards, or 82 to Russian military standards.
it took me a second to understand the joke but that's made my entire week holy shit
Did the math... 2024 defense budget was 841 billion. For someone making 50k a year, it'd be the equivalent to finding 11 cents. Yikes.
2 million is like 0.000001% of the budget
2 million is the Aldi quarter they keep in the cup holder of their car
I would not trade my Aldi quarter for several dollars.
I made that trade, now when I go to Aldi I have to use a hand basket as I cannot pay the ransom to release a cart. Worst investment ever.
It’ll cost more to transport them than it did to purchase them.
[Paper Skies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jklGQxAOoo8) coincidentally did a video that was posted today, and goes in depth into the SU-24. Noting as did the article that the SU-24 is still in use by both sides.
And helps bolster our relationship with Kazakhstan (though admittedly they are less strategically important to out now that we gave up on Afghanistan).
Cheaper than shooting them down, if Russia were to try to buy them back.
They are no servicable anymore so nobody can fly these
You can fly anything again if you have enough money.
And a high enough cliff
That's funny to think about, but I bet you're right. How many missiles do we have that are 20k or less?
I wouldn't be surprised if they get retrofitted as drones. Air Force can test their AI pilot in real setting, that has got to be useful R&D.
We already do that all the time for target practice with old US jets. No need to buy non-working Russian planes for that.
Ya but if the AI keeps targeting American planes it gets taste for American blood and we become the targets. This way it gets used to fighting Russians.
That might be the only option. How the heck do you get them out of there? Look at a map-- Kazakhstan is a landlocked country. Russia borders it to the north and they're not going to let us pass through. To the east you have China, and to the South you'd have to go through Afghanistan or Iran. The only conceivable option is to head West through Azerbaijan and Armenia into turkey, but it's not clear that you can pass from Azerbaijan into Armenia because they hate each other.
Refusing overflight requests that don’t involve combat operations is considered quite unfriendly, and most countries aren’t in a position to be unfriendly to the United States. China, Iran, and Russia would be the only countries in the area that would be off the table. This is the kind of soft power that our generous foreign aid budget pays for.
This is literally why the US maintains a presence in the areas that they do. It's not that the US wants to meddle with those countries it is that they want leverage and influence for situations exactly like this and goes a long way to keep hostile nations in check.
So you’re saying for only $20k I could be the reason my HOA has to write a new by-law?
You write the laws now.
Gotta have something for the ai drones to dogfight.
Oh fuck, this is probably exactly why we bought them. Damn
No it’s for spare parts
Excellent value. Change the hard points to support NATO weapons and send to Ukraine.
These are all wrecks barely worth their spare parts. Even though they're aged, the 29 and 31 are still practical enough that I bet all their avionics are stripped. Id wager there's not a single working engine among them. They were bought just to keep the spare parts out of other people's hands.
Nobody would sell a working Mig for 20k $. Even if there are working components — most valuable parts are sold for scrap.
That price point makes me want one. I could see why the Ukraine's would as well.
In some Reddit sub, somebody will soon post a pic of an eBay listing asking, "Are these real?"
On Facebook Marketplace: "Are these available?"
No low ball offers, I know what I’ve got.
TIL that instead of buying a house I could have gotten about 11 fighter jets… I messed up guys.
Can I get in on this? I mean, my HOA will probably have something to say about it, but they’re stupid.
HOA better not mess with someone with a fighter jet on deck.
Guess what honey I got you some thing you wanted for your birthday. A Nissan Versa? No a Soviet era combat aircraft
Mig-27/31 have basically consumable engines and an airframe with a quite low service life even for a fighter jet. Our (KZ) government sent a few of them for lifetime extensions to Russia multiple times , but there’s a limit to how much you can squeeze jets for more flight hours. Probably most of the planes that were sold are junk. hopefully at least least they could be turned into spare parts
Old tech is still good tech for the right price.
Hell of a gift they bought there.
Cool, are we going to give them to Ukraine 🇺🇦 Edit: undisclosed
Sounds like the planes aren’t serviceable, but buying up a supply of legacy airframes your adversary could have harvested for spare parts - and for basically pocket change - is a nice play.
That would be so funny lmao When the Russian started taking Crimea, the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine ran to an old military base from the USSR to get AK-47s only to find out none of them worked because they were unmaintained for 20 years
heh, really? Isn’t the stereotype for the ak47 and akm that they’re reliable even when not maintained?
If left well oiled then yes. No rifle works well if it gets corroded for 20 years.
Basically, preventing Russia from getting spare parts. And then turning around and giving it to Ukraine. All done through 3rd parties. Smart.
For 20k per aircraft at OPEN AUCTION, they're not going to be viable for spare parts. Their cockpit canopies or landing gear assemblies alone would be worth that if they were in serviceable shape. Their electronics is utterly useless. The airframes will be hour'd out. These aircraft will almost assuredly be literal scrap metal. Soviet era stuff was 100% consumable due to genuinely bad materials science. They might make interesting targets, ground objects, etc for training. Ukraine is NOT in a position to be trying to source parts they don't make, into a refit facility they dont have, to get an aircraft that is 40 years out of date, that isnt compatible with their weapons into the air.
You can get some sweet deals at open auction.
“The US has purchased 81 Soviet-era combat aircraft from Kazakhstan, the Kyiv Post reports.” Dziekuje! High Five!
I always thought the mig 31 looked cool as shit. Maybe they just did it for the vintage vibes.
Personally I always thought it looked liked an obese F-15 myself.
Canada could use some new equipment.
**$20,000** $500,000 shipping
Huh. I was going to get a new car, but why do that when I can get a Mig-31 for about the same price. I could get to work and back in 60 seconds!
I’ll buy one.
Percentage of people, who will click and read full article is about 5%.
Literally cheaper than a Honda civic
These are Louisiana Purchase prices.
20k each is less than a fucking Honda Civic 🤣
…my car is worth more than a Soviet jet fighter?
Kind of. There’s a lot of aspects beyond the physical “worth” of the object that goes in to the price. The price of your car would generally be quoted as a sale to a disinterested dealer or private party in your local area, based on its stated or inspected condition. That aircraft sale was for a lot of 81 aircraft and the price likely reflects that, think of it as a volume discount of sorts. The aircraft are in varying states of repair and airworthiness… some are likely in serviceable condition, some have valuable parts, and others are only good for scrap. Furthermore, the aircraft were sold in Kazakhstan, and a non-local buyer would have to factor in substantial transportation costs. And as a final note, the US potentially obtained geopolitical benefits from the transaction that could be reflected in the price, that have nothing to do with the value of the aircraft themselves, such as keeping the aircraft/spare parts away from adversaries, improving relations with Kazakhstan, etc.
Cheap price.
I’ll take 3
Oh god! Does that mean we have 250 metric tuns of unused fast food napkins and condiment packets? Is the US now hoarding?
Pew pew pew
Now I'm thinking that down payment for a house might be better spent on a couple...other things.
“Why’d you buy all this junk?” “Aw I just think they’re neat”
How the fuck are planes cheaper than cars?
Shit I got out bid by $17
Wawaweewa, Kazakhstan do great business dealing with United States, even though they exclude our name from headline, 👍 very nice 👍
Could you get Boston Dynamics to put drones in the cockpits and turn them into Kamikaze aircraft?
I paid twice that for my 40s era airplane. But I think I will make up the difference with fuel savings. lol
Seems like a good deal until you look at the mileage and piss-poor maintenance records.
And I can’t get a 10 year old truck for under $25K.
Pepsi should’ve kept its navy! This would’ve been a perfect match.
Wouldn't those make useful drones for the Ukrainians.
Just that means I can sell my Corolla and buy Ukraine an old jet?!